On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use.
Sure. However, the tree is far too large to check manually for many things. If we were to do the Sekrit Tool's IUSE check manually, for example, we'd still be in app-something, and would have missed many of the screwups. | The final say should | be the human interaction. If doing weird white spaces breaks the tool, | but really isn't a QA issue outside of neatness, it shouldn't be | waving red flags. The problem is, without fixing the syntax weirdness it's not possible to tell whether red flags should be being waved for something else. | Yes, its probably something that should be fixed, | but it shouldn't be a critical one just because the tool is broken | and can't handle the weirdness. That's the thing... Doing static analysis on bash code is ludicrously difficult. If you don't believe me, try writing a tool that will figure out all ebuilds that have a redundant src_compile. It's a heck of a lot easier to do if you assume that developers will use sane syntax. Where developers don't use sane syntax, the only way to deal with it is to check it by hand. We don't have enough developers to do that. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
